Contrary to the decision reached by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Chubb & Son, Inc. v. Asiana Airlines, the federal courts should be permitted to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over the international transportation of goods by air between South Korea and the United States. Applying general principles of treaty interpretation under customary international law confirms that treaty relations under the Warsaw Convention exist between the two countries by way of the United States' adherence to that treaty, and South Korea's adherence to the Hague Protocol. Since federal courts have jurisdiction over cases arising under U.S. treaties, the district court was vested with treaty jurisdiction and the case should have been decided according to the terms of the Warsaw Convention. Furthermore, even in the absence of actual treaty relations, the question as to whether or not treaty relations existed was sufficient to support federal question jurisdiction. As a result, the court had discretion to rule on related claims, even after the dismissal of the treaty claim.
Dana L. Christensen,
The Elusive Exercise of Jurisdiction over Air Transportation Between the United States and South Korea,
10 Pac. Rim L & Pol'y J.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wilj/vol10/iss3/5